Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @12:58PM
from the and-you'll-like-it dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a 'pray I don't alter it again' moment for eBook sellers on apple iPad and iPhone devices, Apple is now requiring third-party eBook sellers like Amazon to also make their titles available through the Apple store, wherein the empire will take an additional 30% cut. 'Apple confirmed Tuesday that it would require app developers that sell e-books outside of their iPad and iPhone apps — through a Web site, for example — to also sell the books inside those apps. And purchases that originate in the app must be made through Apple, which keeps a 30 percent cut.'"

Apple is better than anyone at getting the most revenue out of a product or service while impacting users the least. Sony is one of the worst--look at the crap they tried to do with MiniDiscs. Apple knows where to get money where it won't irritate people to the point of cutting into their market share, and they know where NOT to get money. Good or bad depends on your point of view, but nobody can milk a cash cow like Apple.

The problem comes if they try to force amazon to charge the same price in-app as they do in the web store. I doubt amazon will stick around through a decision like that. They still have to make a profit too. If they can't jack their prices up for the in-app store, then their profit margin might shrink to nothing, or put them in the negative.

Currently, the kindle app is one of the the only reasons I ever pick up the iPad anymore. Apple shouldn't mess with it. I have no qualms about ditching the iPad if they do...

Exactly - I do like my iPad - I have it handy at home for couch-surfing, and I carry it on my commute for entertainment; 80% reading maybe 20% video. Besides safari, mail, and kindle, every other app has faded in interest. If Apple screws with my kindle app the iPad will get left behind and I'll probably upgrade to a newer kindle. If ebook prices go up generally, I will go back to the used book store.

No, the problem is requiring them to put everything on the Apple Store in the first place.

What happens if Amazon or B&N doesn't yield? Somehow the Kindle or Nook app gets "rescinded", and stops working when next their iphone or ipad updates. And then the other booksellers have to explain to their customers why all of a sudden, paid-for books can no longer be viewed on the device.

This is monopolistic practices: the next step is Apple announcing how they have "the largest selection of books" in the Apple Store, because they've forcibly extorted Amazon, Barnes&Noble, and every other ebook purveyor to put their books in the Apple Store or be cut off from the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad market entirely.

I wonder what happened to the monopoly abuse lawsuit [windowsitpro.com] over iPhone only being on AT&T anyways...

What happens if Amazon or B&N doesn't yield? Somehow the Kindle or Nook app gets "rescinded", and stops working when next their iphone or ipad updates.

The only apps that have ever been removed were ones that were deceptive or illegal in the first place. I've done quite a bit of searching and I can't find any cases where Apple removed an app from the App Store and also forced its removal from a device. What usually happens is that people who already have the app on their devices can still use it even though it's no longer available in the App Store.

We can speculate all we want about how it might happen some day but until that day happens it's all FUD.

The Slashdot story is wrong. It's nearly right but there is a subtle, crucial difference:"“We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app,” Trudy Muller, an Apple spokeswoman, said in a statement. "

This does not force amazon to offer all its wares inside the apple store. But it will prevent Amazon from advertising those wares inside the apple store if it does not offer the through apple.

What they are saying is that if you advertise a route to purchase something in the app then there has to be a way to purchase it through the apple store. Their idea is that free apps should not be used for marketing. Their rationale is that free apps are a burden on apple since they run the apple store. If the free app is generating revenue it has to pay.

Do I agree with this? No. It's my phone and my apps. I don't like apple deciding what apps get offered.

It seems like a reasonable compromise would be to allow app developers who want to offer free apps that are conduits to their own stores to pay a "service fee" to apple for the app. That's justified for added value apple brings to an orderly app store. The problem with this is that unless the service fee is pro-rated to the value of the external sales then it means smaller stores get pinched more by a flat service fee than larger stores that amortize it over many purchases. This brings us back to a per-sale fee which is apple's position.

I think the real problem here is not sales commission but the size of the commission. 30% seems like an exorbitant commission.

They are enforcing the original rules, which is that if you make an app that has a notion of in-app purchasing

Kindle App doesn't have in-app purchasing. It has a button for "Kindle Store", but that just opens the browser directing you to the appropriate section of their website, and all books are then purchased there. The trick is that once a book is purchased in the store, it is pushed to Kindle devices that you own - including the Kindle App. It looks like Apple is not happy about this.

Well, I don't see why Amazon should give Apple a cut in the above model, and if they ditch the app, I'm pretty sure I won't be buying iPad 2 (iBooks is meh).

Actually, Apple has explicitly refused to say whether Amazon is against the rules (they wouldn't apparently answer when asked if they'll be reviewing whether Amazon's app falls within them). It could be that they have no issue (or rather, would have trouble portraying it as a legitimate one) with Amazon's implementation - I'd say Sony tried to do in-app purchasing via their own store.

They are enforcing the original rules, which is that if you make an app that has a notion of in-app purchasing--you have to offer the content via Apple's in-app purchasing model, although you are free to offer the user the choice of two models and there's nothing that says they have to be the same price as far as I know.

Pardon? Go back and read the article; Apple is requiring that, if an app developer sells e-books outside the app, they must also sell the e-books inside the app, and all such in-app sales must go through Apple, which will graciously only charge 30% of the sale price for the privilege of being forced to sell through them.

The poster is correct that Amazon can't jack up prices for Apple's in-app store purchases. 30% is about what Amazon makes on Kindle books to start with, and Apple has a clause on book sales that you can't charge more in their bookstore than anywhere else that the books are sold. That required eBooks to be rounded up to the $x.99 cent mark because Apple apparently can't sell anything that doesn't end in.99 cents. Amazon would have no profit at all on sales through Apple under their contracts with publishers.

Just how many more reasons do we need to quit supporting this Apple walled garden garbage? When I buy a computer it is with the intent that I can load on it what I want to load on it -- not what Apple thinks I should be able to load on it.

Please explain how Author --> Publisher --> Apple --> Amazon --> Reader removed the middleman from what was Amazon's current models of either:

Author --> Publisher --> Amazon --> Reader

or

Author --> Amazon --> Author's mom.

and people save money

How exactly are book sales going to kick an additional percentage to Apple and be cheaper? Do you honestly believe that if Barnes and Noble and Amazon were not alternative shops for eBooks that Apple would have lower eBook prices, when it was Apple that allowed publishers to force Amazon and BN to raise their ebook prices several months back?

Apple's neither the magical cheapness fairy who saved music, nor some sort of cartoon supervillain who's going to use iPads to take over the universe. What they are is a managed-hardware company with minor arms in software and PC sales. Unfortunately in many respects, they have an institutional habit of trying to use their hardware management to extend vendor lock-in, at the expense of business competition and personal freedom on those dev

I didn't say it wouldn't impact users. I said it would generate revenue while impacting users the least. That's good business. It will certainly make some users go elsewhere, but not many. I was contrasting with the dumb decisions Sony and other companies make, where they severely limit what users can do in the hopes of increasing revenue, and end up killing the technology because nobody wants it with those restrictions (c.f. Minidisc). That's bad business.

I think if they wanted to "generate revenue while impacting users the least" the best way would be to keep going with their current model, making money off of providing decent hardware and a platform which some people for some reason tolerate.

If they really try to push 30%, they'll probably end up with less users, and eventually end up with no revenue. I think 5-10% could perhaps be justified, but 30? Why? Apple are doing no work for this. I'm pretty sure the iPad will be benefitting more from the eBook mar

How can even 5-10% be justified - any non-zero amount? I paid for my iPad, I paid for my kindle books - how can it be justified at all that I have to pay Apple to use a device I already own to look at content that I already own??? You said it yourself - they do no work, they add no value - they should get $0.00.

If Amazon were forced to sell their content through the app store, with Apple taking a 30% cut of each purchase, they (Amazon) could not profit, or even break even, on those sales, unless they significantly raise their prices when selling through the app store.

But! Apple also prohibits app store sellers from charging a higher price in the app store than they charge when selling the same content through other channels.

(really, it cracks me up how people are able, in their eyes, to single out Sony for boycott... Sony which, in this case, is a very open entity - their e-book readers stuff is built around standards; and generally is more of a far from monolithic consortium, with many divisions almost struggling with each other; actively involved in many universally used standards (of course, those are not remembered as "from Sony"), offering one of most open DAPs, gi

Sony e-readers use the established "open" format, ePub, while the Kindle does not. And Sony has a larger library of compatible books because of it. There is more than the Amazon store. Barnes and Noble uses ePub, Sony's store uses ePub, Project Gutenberg uses ePub, ePubbooks.com uses ePub(obviously), etc.

As far as butthurt because they said that the PS2 could do Toy Story and the PS3 would be worth $700, who cares? The market played that out. The PS2 kicked ass and first gen PS3s(the most expensive

And S/PDIF (what do you think "S" means?). And FDD (what is to greatest extent the FDD, at least), DAT, DV, HDV. What you probably didn't realize. And I'm probably missing some, too.

(is it so hard to google CCD or DAP? But I'll add: apart from tons of imaging sensors - also fabulous and affordable NLE (yeah, I'm bad;) ) software - finding great use by indy artists... hm, a "competition" for Sony Pictures?)
Heck, you didn't know anything about the character of their e-book stuff...

They didn't have much of a choice. Apple's T&Cs require that no product sold on their storefronts cost more than via any other medium, and they have a minimum $0.99 price point, and their prices are all $x.99. Amazon's sellers all had to ramp up their prices on the Amazon store just so that it would cost the same on the iBooks store and not more.

Apple is better than anyone at getting the most revenue out of a product or service while impacting users the least.

In comparison to what? I'd like to see a metric for how you qualify "impacting users the least."

I misguidedly adopted iTunes many years ago and continue to be bitten in the ass over it again and again. How many times have you had to migrate your iTunes library to a new machine and then get it all working with your iPhone without losing any apps or media? How much of your media collection is embargoed because of Apple DRM? How much of your media metadata do you need to reapply after a fresh migration? I've

Unless they also have some rule that says the content must be at the same price they will undoubtedly need to alter it further to require that too otherwise I'm sure the content will be made available in the app...with a 30% markup to cover the Apple fee of course. This will result in nobody using the in-app purchase and everyone using the external method.

Unless they also have some rule that says the content must be at the same price they will undoubtedly need to alter it further to require that too otherwise I'm sure the content will be made available in the app...with a 30% markup to cover the Apple fee of course. This will result in nobody using the in-app purchase and everyone using the external method.

Can they display it on the receipt as "Apple Tax (30%)"? I would just love to see someone have the balls to place blame where it is due, here.

No, actually, probably only about 10% of iPad users will figure out that it's just as easy to buy stuff outside the app, and unless there's a price advantage to the customer, precisely nobody will bother. Trust me on this, the average consumer doesn't give a flying fig about bookseller/publisher/author profits.

Let's say that I buy books from a publisher for $7 and sell them for $10. I would make $3 each time I sold a book. $3 is 30% of $10.

Now, let's say that I want to sell my books at your store. You allow me to sell them if I give you 30% of each sale.

If I sold my books for $10 at your store, you would get $3 (30%) and I would get $7. However, I need to give my $7 to the publishers. That means that you get $3 and I get $7 - $7 = $0 -- That's not a good deal for me.

I want to make $3, so I must raise my prices. How much do I need to raise prices so that I still get $3 after I pay the publisher and you take your 30%?

I can use the formula I gave you earlier: NewPrice = OldPrice * (100/(100-AppleTax))

10 * (100/(100-30)) = 14.2857 (Let's just call that $14.29 )

So, when I sell my book at your store for 14.29, you get 30% ($4.29) and I get $10 of which $7 goes to the publisher. That means I get to keep $10 - $7 = $3 dollars (the amount I was earning before)

That means I need to raise my prices by 43% to keep my profits the same.

To give you 30% means that my customers must pay 43% more than before!

See how easy that is? It's neither tricky or "disingenuous" -- it's perfectly correct and obvious to all but the most numerically illiterate.

This is all moot anyhow, as Amazon was forced on to the agency model -- publishers set the price and give Amazon a 30% cut. (Amazon couldn't raise prices if it wanted to.) To give Apple 30% means that Amazon gets nothing, as explained to you above.

Look folks, it's a we told you so moment. You bought the shiny hardware despite the warnings that you're going to be trapped in a walled garden. You are now at the whims of Apple and it's your own damn fault.

You're acting as if something changed for the users here. Nothing has changed for them. Sure, some companies will have to think long and hard about how they want to approach the situation, but the user experience is the same

Kindle app is the single most heavy used one on my iPhone. If it disappears tomorrow, the user experience sure as hell won't be the same for me. In fact (given that I also own Kindle DX, and read on it as well, and want my books, bookmark sync etc), this would be reason good enough for me to switch back to Android phone, and buy an Android tablet rather than iPad.

So now, not only do sellers need to give (most) of the money to publishers, they now have to give another 30% to Apple. Since I know at least Amazon sells really close to their own cost (or even less, in some cases), this would mean Amazon either needs to take a loss on eBooks sold on Apple's platform, or else raise prices.

Which is probably what this really is all about. Force other eBook sellers to raise prices, and now Apple's own solution looks much more attractive. Sure, they can still sell on their own separate website, but users will likely just choose the easiest option and get turned off by the higher prices, thus not even checking out the website.

Since Amazon can't just sell any book it wants without an agreement and payment to the author and publisher, I'm guessing the price Amazon has to pay per unit sold is very much a non-zero number. Even if bandwidth is counted as free, everyone who got the ebook to the point to where it can be downloaded wants to get paid. It isn't like you can sell the first one for $10 million and give the others away free.

eBook prices are rather close to printed book prices because apparently the printing costs are very low (or so I've read...)

To say that per-unit printing costs are very low is true but misleading; once you've added in storage, distribution, and the initial overhead required to produce a print run of economical size, it has a significant impact on the market.

At a slightly more abstract level, the fact that a large quantity of start up capital (for the initial run of 'x' thousand books) is no longer necessary greatly reduces the necessity of a publisher in general. Without a publisher in the middle taking a significant cut, prices

Amazon either needs to take a loss on eBooks sold on Apple's platform, or else raise prices.

What's the marginal cost of an ebook?

Not sure, but I suspect you have a good point. 70% of the cost of a real book is distribution, and that isn't counting printing and binding. Publishers want to maintain that 70%+ even though eBook "manufacturing" and distribution costs are so small it's difficult to measure. Apple, it seems, wants to skim the publishers' windfall.

So now, not only do sellers need to give (most) of the money to publishers, they now have to give another 30% to Apple. Since I know at least Amazon sells really close to their own cost (or even less, in some cases), this would mean Amazon either needs to take a loss on eBooks sold on Apple's platform, or else raise prices.

Is there any reason Amazon can't just sell the ebooks for 30% more in Apple's store than in its own? Unless Amazon signed some binding contract, I think any judge would laugh Apple out of the courtroom for trying to make Amazon sell ebooks in Apple's store at a loss, or trying to make Amazon raise prices in its own store to subsidize sales in Apple's store.

Also, why are publishers still getting most of the money for ebook sales? There's nothing to publish. You still need an editor and a marketer, but there's no text to lay out, no pages to print, no bindings to make, and no boxes of books to distribute. Previously, publishing was controlled by a few companies who subsequently raised prices to where they were taking an exorbitant slice of the pie. But with the Internet, ebooks, and electronic publishing, you could do it all yourself if you wanted. This is a shakeup to the industry's business model which has long been needed.

Is there any reason Amazon can't just sell the ebooks for 30% more in Apple's store than in its own?

Did you read the comment you're replying to: "...Force other eBook sellers to raise prices, and now Apple's own solution looks much more attractive...."?

Since the publisher is the one paying royalties to the authors, I hope the publisher's getting the lion's share of the money from distribution. I'm not optimistic about what the author gets after that either, but that's a separate complaint, isn't it?

Also, why are publishers still getting most of the money for ebook sales? There's nothing to publish. You still need an editor and a marketer, but there's no text to lay out, no pages to print, no bindings to make, and no boxes of books to distribute[...]But with the Internet, ebooks, and electronic publishing, you could do it all yourself if you wanted.

You always could do all of that by yourself. And you'd then be a publisher and not a writer. Guess what most writers like to do? It ain't the things publishers do.

Also, you're wrong. Every electronic reader has a different set of widgets and funky behaviours when it comes to ebooks. Making sure that your text looks good in all of the good ones is a huge job, so there's layout back into the equation. Still got to worry about getting a number for the book. Still got to worry about getting the book uplo

I wonder if Apple would allow sellers to have both options but differing prices for each one. Perhaps the app could show the options of buying an ebook from Amazon direct for $9.99, or buying in-app via iTunes payment for $14.50.

It could be handy for someone who got an iTunes Gift Card, for example.

So now, not only do sellers need to give (most) of the money to publishers, they now have to give another 30% to Apple. Since I know at least Amazon sells really close to their own cost (or even less, in some cases), this would mean Amazon either needs to take a loss on eBooks sold on Apple's platform, or else raise prices.

This is a logical extension of existing rules.

Since you can have free apps in the app store what was happening was a developer would make their app free and then sell content (game levels, sequels to the game, in-game items) outside of the app store, circumventing the payment to Apple. So now Apple is advertising the app, hosting the app, and using their bandwidth to provide it to the user but not getting anything in exchange. Apple eventually changed the rules and required that payments for new functionali

The requirement is that the book has to be available as an in-app purchase. There's no requirement I've read that the price has to be the same. If someone wants to pay 30% more for the book off of an in-app purchase, that's their business.

In many cases, Amazon is not allowed (contractually) to set the price -- the publisher does. This happened last year, when Amazon and MacMillan had their kerfuffle. If you look at Kindle books, if it says "The publisher has set this price," that's what's going on there -- and the publisher has graciously allowed Amazon to take 30% profit on the price the publisher dictates.
So, no, Amazon won't be raising prices. They can't. And since Apple takes 30% of the sale price, and the publishers have graciousl

Which part of "the publishers set the price and the profit margin" did you not understand?

The sale price is $10, and the publisher benevolently allows Amazon to keep 30% of that. So they send $7 to the publisher, and keep $3. But Apple demands 30% of the sale price, $10. So Amazon doesn't see $10, they see $7. And they still have to send $7 to the publisher. Therefore, Amazon gets nothing.

Yes, quite ridiculous: Apple doesn't set the prices. Apple has price ranges for the developer or publisher to pick, but Apple doesn't set them. (That is, the developer can pick a price of US$0.99, US$1.99, and so forth.)

If the book comes from a publisher using Agency model, then the publisher chooses the end-consumer price, and the distributor (agent) cannot change it. The publisher takes 70% of the consumer price, and the remaining 30% goes to the distributor. Apple would be charging the distributor 100% of their revenue in this case, since they would take 30% of the consumer price.

I'm a fan of Apple and their iOS devices (though I know many are not). But I disagree with this change. To make it an option is all well and good, I'm all for it, but to make it a requirement is a step in the wrong direction. I, for one, will continue to purchase my books from Amazon.com. eReader apps help sell Apple devices. IMO, Apple should treat them with more courtesy than this.

Yeah, I too like Apple, and I don't have a problem with their business practices in most cases. Hey, you make a super popular device, you deserve to profit from it, plain and simple.

But this move is adding nothing of value to the user, and simply inserting another middle-man to take a slice of someone's (in this case, Amazon) profit. I hope no one wonders why E-Book prices will most likely go up instead of down - more folks are getting into the game, which means more hands are reaching into the pot of money for a payout.

As an "also a fan of Apples, and owner of an iDevice" I have to agree. This is a poor decision in a number of ways. If I were B&N or Amazon I'd have to wonder if it didn't make more sense to pull my app. They'd really rather you spent money on their e-readers anyway, iPhone and Android apps are a convenience for their customers more than I profit center I'd think. In the event that the e-readers are either pulled or charge a premium for iDevices, I probably won't buy the iPad I was thinking of this

I bought an iPad primarily for the ability to read Kindle books. If this move impacts the price of those books, my iPad will almost become a very expensive brick. Of course my question: What if I buy a Kindle book on the PC, then sync the iPad? Do I have to pay Apple for that? If so, Apple becomes a rent-seeker, plain an simple, which is far worse than anything Microsoft every did. Microsoft never asked for compensation for the content I loaded using Windows apps. IANAL, but I also have to wonder if there i

Well said...this is definitely making me think my next smartphone will be Android-based, and if I ever purchase a tablet it will almost certainly be Android-based, rather than an iPad, if they keep this crap up.

Personally, I bought an iPad because it gave me the best of both worlds--I could use Nook or Kindle books, or iBooks if I was really crazy. If that breaks, I'll sell my iPad and get the first 3.0 Android tablet as a replacement.

What we really need is device-independent books. That's going to be hard to do with DRM, though.

Apple can't possibly require anyone who sells something over a website to also sell it through an Apple portal. Doesn't even make sense as phrased.

This probably has something to do with vendors who have an iPhone/iPad app that jumps out of the app to a webpage for making purchases and then downloads content consumed by the app--neatly circumventing the Apple 30% cut. Still kinda a dick move, though.

I think the idea is that they will simply reject your app if you don't offer in-app purchases. This is probably not a requirement that scales very well, but other than Amazon, who are they really targeting?
This begs the question: If Amazon refuses, can/will Apple remote uninstall the already installed Kindle apps on various devices?

They didn't change their rules, they just started enforcing rules already on the books.

> 11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected> 11.3 Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected>> –Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines

Looks to me like Amazon could fulfill the requirement by removing the "buy" option from the app entirely, and just having the app access already-bought books. Users could still buy though the web page, they just couldn't get to it directly from the app.

Looks to me like Amazon could fulfill the requirement by removing the "buy" option from the app entirely, and just having the app access already-bought books. Users could still buy though the web page, they just couldn't get to it directly from the app.

Amazon does not include a "buy" option in the app itself--it just forwards the user to Amazon's web site in Safari. This is perhaps not elegant, but it is not a problem. But one reading of Apple's requirements is that any app that offers "outside the app" purchases must also offer "in app" purchases, presumably giving a 30% cut to Apple. Assuming that Apple did not permit Amazon to just tack on 30% to the in-app price (which would basically cause users to do what they do now--use Safari), this would almost

This is just weird. It's almost like Apple's operating as though they have no competition. Example: if an ebook from Amazon or B&N is 30% more expensive on the iPad than it is on, say a Nook or Android tablet (because book sellers will *have* to pass on that extra 30% to the customer), then another tablet is a better option, no? Eventually, it'll squeeze all the other publishers out, and only Apple will be able to sell ebooks on the iPad, which is probably their ultimate goal. I mean, if I were a 3rd pa

Not an iPad owner, but I know that Amazon has some free public domain books in their library. So, under this rule, would Amazon be required to give 30% of $0.00 to Apple, or would they be required to start charging?

Not that I agree with what Apple is doing, but isn't Amazon a direct competitor in the ebook market? Forget for the moment that there's a Kindle App. Amazon sells ebooks for the Kindle. As far as I can tell, there's no in-device "app" or tool within the Kindle to buy Apple ebooks, right? And yet, when Amazon takes advantage of the fact that they can actually sell ebooks within the very popular device of their competitor - everyone jumps on Apple for wanting a cut?

So those who seek to profit from the platform Apple has built... will have to pay Apple for the privilege. Oh, the horror!

Sounds a lot more like "those who wish to profit and do business with apple at the same time owe apple 30% no matter what they do"... They are basically ensuring that no competitive market on any level (even below the iTunes market) can take hold since they are demanding that all app related items are sold alongside the apps in the store.

The first thing I thought of was just put the "buy at amazon.com and get 30% off instantly!" on any order page in their app. do what apple wants but make sure your customers know they can get it cheaper elsewhere.

I don't know about iBooks, but Amazon/Kindle has made a big deal about how books you buy from them are tied to your account, so it doesn't matter what device you're using or what device you originally bought the books on, you'll have access to all your stuff. I'm pretty sure Barnes & Noble/Nook works the same way. Apple's move is just an attempt to extort more money out of the booksellers, it shouldn't have any affect on the portability of your ebooks.

You're mis-reading it. Example: They're requiring Amazon to allow purchase through the app, and any purchases made through the app can only use Apple's merchant setup, which takes a 30% commission on every sale (which is more than the profit margin at the moment if I remember correctly). Right now, the app opens the browser to the Amazon page where you buy the eBook from Amazon with your Amazon account and credit card.

While Apple is unifying the payment scheme for all purchases made on an iDevice, they're t

The ebook market and format is f***ed up at the moment, only somewhat mitigated by varying degrees of success of third parties cracking the DRM. If you buy stuff from one provider right now, don't expect it to work on a different providers later. The good news is this will probably fix itself at some point when publishers start considering the sales they are losing when people choose piracy as the superior (not because of cost) option.

What Apple is really saying.. any book purchased through the Kindle app is subject to the same 30% cut [for Apple] that app developers have to give Apple. If you buy a $9 book in the Kindle app, $3ish goes to Apple. This is way less about expanding the iPad/Kindle catalog and more about Apple thinking they deserve a piece.

The big problem with this.. Apple gets their 30% cut from apps because they handle the store, transaction and delivery/updating/maintenance for iOS apps. Kindle purchases don't rely on or require Apple infrastructure, the app is mainly a means to a purchasing end. This is a 'I'm going to take my ball and go home' Apple money grab. What's to stop Microsoft from demanding 30% of any Kindle for PC purchase?

I like Apple, but these kinds of capitalist 'let's invent more ways to make money' motives really rile me.

The Kindle app that you use to purchase and view the content is free but it's advertised through the iTunes App Store, hosted on the servers, and delivered using the bandwidth. It costs Apple real money to provide a free service to Amazon and now Apple is looking to get some of that money back.

What kind of logic is this? Apple forces all apps to go through their app store exclusively. Implying that the Kindle app is kindly hosted there by the good graces of Apple is sophistry at its best. Then from there, to say that Apple deserves a 30% cut for something they're forcing app publishers to do is just plain... twisted.

I'd say that portability (and, by extension, longevity) is very important, especially considering that eBooks are often not cheap. Currently ePub is a decent bet - it's supported by most readers (iPad, nook, Sony's range, etc.) and is a fairly simple open format, so even if it's not directly supported in future devices it will be easy to convert without loss of formatting and so forth. The one notable exception here is the Kindle, which requires books to be converted into its own format before reading.

The real problem, though is that if it's DRM'ed it's not portable, and can't be converted to another format. There are very few DRM free options out there, and none that do exist have the range that the major sellers do. Currently Apple forces [boingboing.net] sellers to use DRM, whether the author and publisher want to or not - I'm not sure how strong the DRM on Apple purchases is, but even so I'd recommend against supporting that behaviour by purchasing from them.

I'd be kinda curious as to how that fits in with Apple's censorship inclinations...Wouldn't this mean that the entire Amazon catalog would have to submit to Apple's morality filter?Not to mention filtering out any books that promote Android.

I think it's just a few of us regular posters on Slashdot and the various Linux forums who think this way. I have met less than five people who care about openness at all in real life. Most people either don't care about openness or are totally openness-agnostic.